No one can deny it: economics matters. Its theories are the mother tongue of public policy, the rationale for multi-billion-dollar investments, and the tools used to tackle global poverty and manage our planetary home. Pity then that its fundamental ideas are centuries out of date yet still dominate decision-making for the future.

Today’s economics students will be among the influential citizens and policymakers shaping human societies in 2050. But the economic mindset that they are being taught is rooted in the textbooks of 1950 which, in turn, are grounded in the theories of 1850. Given the challenges of the 21st century—from climate change and extreme inequalities to recurring financial crises—this is shaping up to be a disaster. We stand little chance of writing a new economic story that is fit for our times if we keep falling back on last-century’s economic storybooks.

When I studied economics at university 25 years ago I believed it would empower me to help tackle humanity’s social and environmental challenges. But like many of today’s disillusioned students its disconnect from relevance and reality left me deeply frustrated. So I walked away from its theories and immersed myself in real-world economic challenges, from the villages of Zanzibar to the headquarters of the United Nations, and on to the campaign frontlines of Oxfam.

In the process I realized the obvious: that you can’t walk away from economics because it frames the world we inhabit, so I decided to walk back towards it and flip it on its head. What if we started economics with humanity’s goals for the 21st century, and then asked what economic mindset would give us half a chance of achieving them?

Spurred on by this question, I pushed aside my old economics textbooks and sought out the best emerging ideas that I could find, drawing on diverse schools of thought including complexity, ecological, feminist, behavioural and institutional economics, and set out to discover what happens when they all dance on the same page. The insights that I drew out imply that the economic future will be fascinating, but wildly unlike the past, so long as we equip ourselves with the mindset needed to take it on. So here are seven ways in which I believe we can all start to think like 21st century economists:

Change the goal: from GDP growth to the Doughnut.

For over half a century, economists have fixated on GDP as the first measure of economic progress, but GDP is a false goal waiting to be ousted. The 21st century calls for a far more ambitious and global economic goal: meeting the needs of all within the means of the planet. Draw that goal on the page and – odd though it sounds – it comes out looking like a doughnut.The challenge now is to create local to global economies that ensure that no one falls short on life’s essentials – from food and housing to healthcare and political voice – while safeguarding Earth’s life-giving systems, from a stable climate and fertile soils to healthy oceans and a protective ozone layer. This single switch of purpose transforms the meaning and shape of economic progress: from endless growth to thriving in balance.

See the big picture: from self-contained market to embedded economy.

Exactly 70 years ago in April 1947, an ambitious band of economists crafted a neoliberal story of the economy and, since Thatcher and Reagan came to power in the 1980s, it has dominated the international stage. Its narrative about the efficiency of the market, the incompetence of the state, the domesticity of the household and the tragedy of the commons, has helped to push many societies towards social and ecological collapse. It’s time to write a new economic story fit for this century – one that sees the economy’s dependence upon society and the living world. This story must recognize the power of the market—so let’s embed it wisely; the partnership of the state—so let’s hold it to account; the core role of the household—so let’s value its contribution; and the creativity of the commons—so let’s unleash their potential.

The character at the heart of 20th century economics—‘rational economic man’—presents a pitiful portrait of humanity: he stands alone, with money in his hand, a calculator in his head, ego in his heart, and nature at his feet. Worse, when we are told that he is like us, we actually start to become more like him, to the detriment of our communities and the planet. But human nature is far richer than this, as emerging sketches of our new self-portrait reveal: we are reciprocating, interdependent, approximating people deeply embedded within the living world. It’s time to put this new portrait of humanity at the heart of economic theory so that economics can start to nurture the best of human nature. Doing so will give us—all ten billion of us to come—a far greater chance of thriving together.

Get savvy with systems: from mechanical equilibrium to dynamic complexity.

Economics has long suffered from physics envy: awed by the genius of Isaac Newton and his insights into the physical laws of motion, 19th century economists became fixated on discovering economic laws of motion. But these simply don’t exist: they are mere models, just like the theory of market equilibrium which blinded economists to the looming financial crash of 2008. That’s why 21st-century economists embrace complexity and evolutionary thinking instead. Putting dynamic thinking at the heart of economics opens up new insights for understanding the rise of the one percent and the boom and bust of financial markets. It’s time to stop searching for the economy’s elusive control levers (they don’t exist), and instead start stewarding the economy as an ever-evolving system.

Design to distribute: from ‘growth will even it up again’ to distributive by design.

In the 20th century economic theory whispered a powerful message when it comes to inequality: it has to get worse before it can get better, and growth will eventually even things up. But extreme inequality, as it turns out, is not an economic law or necessity: it is a design failure. Twenty-first century economists recognize that there are many ways to design economies to be far more distributive of value among those who help to generate it. And that means going beyond redistributing income to pre-distributing wealth, such as the wealth that lies in controlling land, enterprise, and the power to create money.

Create to regenerate: from ‘growth will clean it up again’ to regenerative by design.

Economic theory has long portrayed a clean environment as a luxury good, affordable only for the well-off—a view that says that pollution has to increase before it can decline, and (guess what), growth will eventually clean it up. But as with inequality there is no such economic law: environmental degradation is the result of degenerative industrial design. This century calls for economic thinking that unleashes the potential of regenerative design in order to create a circular, not linear, economy—and to restore ourselves as full participants in Earth’s cyclical processes of life.

7. Be Agnostic about Growth: from growth-addicted to growth-agnostic.

To the alarm of governments and financiers, forecasts for GDP growth in many high-income countries are flat-lining, opening up a crisis in growth-based economics. Mainstream economics views endless GDP growth as a must, but nothing in nature grows forever, and the economic attempt to buck that trend is raising tough questions in high-income but low-growth countries. That’s because today we have economies that need to grow, whether or not they make us thrive. What we need are economies that make us thrive, whether or not they grow. That radical flip in perspective invites us to become agnostic about growth and to explore how our economies—which are currently financially, politically and socially addicted to growth—could learn to live with or without it.

I am convinced that these seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist are fundamental to the new economic mindset this century demands. Their principles and patterns will equip new economic thinkers—and the inner economist in us all—to start creating an economy that enables everyone to prosper. Given the speed, scale and uncertainty of change that we face in coming years—and the diversity of contexts from Beijing to Birmingham to Bamako—it would be foolhardy to attempt to prescribe now all the policies and institutions that will be fit for the future. The coming generation of thinkers and doers will be far better placed to experiment and discover what works as the context continually changes.

What we can do now—and must do well—is to bring together the best ideas to create a new economic mindset that is never fixed but always evolving. The task for economic thinkers in the decades ahead will be to bring these seven ways of thinking together in practice, and to add to them. We have barely set out on this adventure in rethinking economics. Please join the crew.

Comment from W. Hall

Unfortunately the logic of “sustainability” activists is undermined by the same realities as undermine the US campaign “against” ISIS. The US claims to be fighting ISIS but in fact has created and sustains ISIS. Similarly with climate change. The Paris climate agreement claims to be a way of “dealing with” climate change (through profitable taxation, among other things, and emissions trading of ”bads”). But policy on global warming for decades has been to create it through climate modification (a generation ago the “ice age” was perceived as being a problem, suggesting that global warming would be a good idea). Climate modification is marketed as a way of “mitigating” global warming, but its effect is to exacerbate it. Trump has spoilt this game by saying that climate change is a fraud and radically modifying US environmental policy. This has prompted the military to come out against him in defence of the Paris climate agreement. Climate change has always been their business but now they are having to defend it against the presidency. Of course there is nothing pro-environmental about Trump’s policies. The same environmentally destructive practices continue as before. But the Paris climate agreement involves an element of taxation of big corporations that is not of any interest to Trump’s backers. It also involves taxation of the rest of us. But the military relies on state support, and on taxation, so they are going to be “with the ecologists” when it comes to climate policy. Ecologists will continue ineffective protests against secondary symptoms of this alliance, but the alliance is more securely based than the protests against it.

Varoufakis made comments against the neoliberal assumptions underlying emissions trading in his Guardian “Erratic Marxist” interview but unfortunately has not paid any systematic attention to the ideas whose surface he skims in the interview.

Kate Raworth’s “21st century economics” in a way spoils a familiar type of bipolar “divide and rule”, where the bad guys are entrepreneurs who think only about profit and the good guys are the socialists and ecologists, who are moral. Expelled from the scenario are the “conspiracy theorists” who suggest that the bad guys might really have something more than just their profits on their mind. Under “21st century economics” the entrepreneurs will become good guys, leaving today’s good guys at a loss because they will have to find a new role and a new justification for their existence.

This comment was initially published at DiEM25’s unofficial Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/diem25/ launched by “Een Don Quicot” just prior to DiEM 25’s official inauguration in Berlin.

One of the more revealing concepts Dr Herndon mentions in his recent article is something not many are willing to acknowledge as the cause of much grief affecting humans and the environment: “During the past 38 years, the standards of scientific inquiry have changed, particularly among those who depend upon government support. Logic-based challenges to current thinking have largely been replaced by consensus conformity.”

Sciences specifically affected by “consensus conformity” include, among others, the health sciences, especially vaccinology, or the ‘science’ of vaccines—more like pseudoscience, I offer, and microwave science, which lags behind from the World War II era in recognizing only thermal waves but not health-damaging non-thermal radiation waves [2].

As Dr Herndon states, “The oceans are our planet’s major reservoir for CO2.” OMG, how will they ever collect carbon taxes from the oceans? Or from humans, who exhale it with every outbreath? Isn’t that quite an insurmountable problem? Or, will they impose human CO2 taxes for our polluting the planet just by living and breathing on what cabal controllers ‘think’ is their scientific playground? Please excuse my tongue-in-cheekiness.

However, in Dr Herndon’s latest paper, we find questions [3], which need answering—and very soon.

As NOAA and NASA are both prime sources of data utilized in climate models and assessments, and are apparently participants in the global covert tropospheric geoengineering activity, how objective are their data?

Indeed, what are the purposes of spraying a toxic substance into the air we breathe on a near-daily, near-global basis? Surely, those closely connected with the operation know that it causes global warming and polar ice melting.

Do government leaders realize that the intent of these covert geoengineering efforts is to cause global warming? Or are leaders being deceived, told that the tropospheric aerosol spraying is to prevent global warming?

Is it being done to get at the petroleum and other natural resources beneath polar ice?

Is tropospheric geoengineering being done to cause global warming so as to provide a basis for the United Nations to take control of major elements of sovereign nations’ economies? Or are more sinister motives involved?

The military has researched weaponizing weather since 1947, but at what cost to human and environmental health? What have leaders been told that makes them acquiesce to a program that is no less than an assault on planet Earth?

Who profits from this?

Why are scientists promoting the idea of future geoengineering when they know, or certainly ought to know, that tropospheric geoengineering has been ongoing nearly worldwide for decades.”

Nevertheless, the scientific “nitty-gritty” aspects of Dr Herndon’s paper, I think, can be found in his discussion of “COVERT GEOENGINEERING CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING.” Here’s what he says in part:

Geoengineering is defined here as deliberate, large-scale activities aimed at modifying weather/climate systems [i.e., from the troposphere to the stratosphere to the ionosphere — all natural systems]. Weather modification programs have been employed by many nations at least since the 1960s, that is for over half a century, typically for agricultural purposes.”

[….]

There has not only been great secrecy involved, but governments have deceived citizens, either denying the aerial activity or falsely asserting that the observed aerial trails are simply contrails, ice crystals formed from water vapor in jet exhaust. In 2005 the United States Air Force distributed to government agencies and published online a document entitled “Contrails Facts” [65] which blatantly denied the existence of the observed particulate trails and falsely asserted that they are contrails.

There is good evidence that the main particulate matter being sprayed into the troposphere worldwide is coal fly ash, the light ash from coal combustion by electric power companies that is considered to be too toxic to be allowed to exit smokestacks in Western nations [63,66-68].

In the midst of official denial and misrepresentation, one can deduce from physical effects the purposes, if not the motives, for the near-daily, near-global coal fly ash tropospheric geoengineering. Aerosolized coal fly ash retards the fall of rain, at least until clouds become so overburdened that they let go with torrential downpours and storms. Coal fly ash makes atmospheric moisture more electrically conducting, which may be useful in military electromagnetic activities [69]. Coal fly ash sprayed into the troposphere heats the atmosphere, and retards heat loss from Earth’s surface thus enhancing global warming. As coal fly ash settles to the ground, its typically dark gray color absorbs sunlight and alters albedo, again enhancing global warming [66].

69. Bertell R. Planet earth, the latest weapon of war: A critical study into the military and the environment. The Women’s Press: London; 2000.

Dr Herndon’s remarks in the above last paragraph certainly are incriminating about global warming being a man-made (anthropogenic) tragedy, along with an experiment all humans are forced to participate in unknowingly, unwillingly and in defiance of the Nuremberg Code [4].

n the Conclusions of his article, Dr Herndon offers these bone-chilling remarks:

Tropospheric aerosolized particulates, evidenced as coal fly ash, inhibit rainfall, heat the atmosphere, and enhance global warming. Evidence obtained from an accidental aerial release of an engineered material indicates there is an effort to melt glacial ice and thus enhance global warming. By ignoring ongoing tropospheric geoengineering, the IPCC climate assessments as well as the moral authority of the United Nations are compromised.

Fig. 7. Three aircraft flying simultaneously in the same physical environment in which contrail formation is possible in the air above Tucson, Arizona (USA) in 2011. Note that two display short contrails characteristic of rapid ice evaporation. The lengthy trail across the sky is not a contrail – otherwise it would have evaporated as quickly, and been as short, as the other two. Rather, the long trail is formed by emplaced particulate matter. Courtesy of Bornfree and Russ Tanner [from Dr Herndon’s paper]

Dr Herndon’s latest paper is written in scientific language. However, I encourage readers to ‘plough’ through it, as it explains much of what needs to be understood about how not only weather is being manipulated, but science, the environment and humans, as a result of clandestine mechanisms. I wish more humans were interested enough to oppose what’s happening to us and our beloved planet.

The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study, that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

No experiment should be conducted, where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

During the course of the experiment, the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end, if he has reached the physical or mental state, where continuation of the experiment seemed to him to be impossible.

During the course of the experiment, the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgement required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

The ongoing global geoengineering assault has long since inflicted catastrophic and irreparable damage to the biosphere, climate, and life support systems of our planet (along with countless other forms of anthropogenic activity). It is truly incomprehensible that such blatantly obvious “climate intervention” programs can be carried out in skies all over the world, in plain site (for over 70 years), and still be officially denied.

Harvard engineers who launched the world’s biggest solar geoengineering research program may get a dangerous boost from Donald Trump, environmental organizations are warning.

Under the Trump administration, enthusiasm appears to be growing for the controversial technology of solar geo-engineering, which aims to spray sulphate particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s radiation back to space and decrease the temperature of Earth.

What is the true agenda of the weather warfare insanity being carried out in our skies? What are the ultimate objectives? Why would the Trump administration enthusiastically embrace, promote, and back geoengineering/climate intervention programs given the fact that Donald Trump and most of his appointees patently deny that there is any global warming in the first place? More excerpts from the Guardian article are below.

While geoengineering received little favour under Obama, high-level officials within the Trump administration have been long-time advocates for planetary-scale manipulation of Earth systems.

David Schnare, an architect of Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition, has lobbied the US government and testified to Senate in favour of federal support for geoengineering.

“Clearly parts of the Trump administration are very willing to open the door to reckless schemes like David Keith’s, and may well have quietly given the nod to open-air experiments,” said Silvia Riberio, with technology watchdog ETC Group. “Worryingly, geoengineering may emerge as this administration’s preferred approach to global warming. In their view, building a big beautiful wall of sulphate in the sky could be a perfect excuse to allow uncontrolled fossil fuel extraction. We need to be focussing on radical emissions cuts, not dangerous and unjust technofixes.”

… former House speaker and Trump confidant Newt Gingrich was one of the first to start publicly advocating for geoengineering.

“Geoengineering holds forth the promise of addressing global warming concerns for just a few billion dollars a year,” he said in 2008, before helping launch a geoengineering unit while he ran the right-wing think tank American Economic Enterprise. “We would have an option to address global warming by rewarding scientific innovation. Bring on American ingenuity. Stop the green pig.”

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has also appeared to support geoengineering, describing climate change as an “engineering problem.” ExxonMobil’s funding of the climate denial industry is under investigation by attorney generals in the United States, but it’s less well known that ExxonMobil scientists under Tillerson’s reign as CEO were leading developers of geo-engineering technologies

Asked about solutions to climate change at an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting in 2015, Tillerson said that a “plan B has always been grounded in our beliefs around the continued evolution of technology and engineered solutions.”

The ongoing atmospheric particulate (SRM) spraying is undeniable as film footage proves.

Climate engineering is not a “proposal”, it has long since been a lethal reality. This reality cannot be hidden in plain site for much longer as the cataclysmic consequences from the ongoing climate engineering / weather warfare assault manifest in every conceivable way. All of us are needed and essential in the most critical battle to fully expose the geoengineering insanity. If we can expose it, we can stop it, make your voice heard.DW

May be freely reprinted, so long as the text is unaltered, all hyperlinks are left intact, and credit for the article is prominently given to GeoengineeringWatch.org and the article’s author with a hyperlink back to the original story.

On the other side of the picture, ecologists are not touching the most powerful arguments against generating electricity by burning coal, because to cite Dr. Marvin Herndon’s findings would turn them into “conspiracy theorists”, i.e. political lepers. Will adults at some point join the mainstream debate on energy?

“Evidence of an Intentional Effort to Melt Glaciers and Hasten Global Warming”PRESS RELEASE: SAN DIEGO, February 3, 2017

On or about February 14, 2016, an oily-ashy substance fell on seven residences and vehicles in Harrison Township, Michigan, USA. The Commander of nearby Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Michigan told the press that the release was not from a military plane. Upon being queried as to whether a government agency or contractor plane was involved, Brig. Gen. John D. Slocum did not respond.

Suspecting that this was an accidental release from a covert geoengineering activity, geoscientist J. Marvin Herndon of Transdyne Corporation “obtained samples of the material from one of the residents whose property was splattered from above and had the material analyzed. The material was also sampled and analyzed by officials from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.” In a recent article in the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, Dr. Herndon reports that “the results of those analyses provide evidence of a deliberate operation to melt ice and snow, which is consistent with the hypothesis that aerosolized coal fly ash is being used to deliberately enhance global warming.” (Complete PR PDF)

“…the preponderance of agreements over a large number of element ratios is strong evidence that coal fly ash is a component of the air-drop material.”

The following story is no surprise to those who’ve been following the covert dumping of aerosols into the atmosphere, including carbon black ash particulates that can increase the melting rate of arctic ice. We can easily imagine the event described in the story is due to mechanical or pilot error when a load of black ash was accidently deployed over the population surrounding Selfridge Air Base.

This report reveals that local officials have no policy in place to adequately respond to a potential terror attack, or to determine if unknown substances falling from the sky onto populations below are a HAZMAT concern.

Harrison Township is a boating community located on Lake St. Clair, immediately south of the only available runway at Selfridge Air Base.

With the dumping of black ash landing on the Harrison population, we can easily guess that Lake St. Clair was probably contaminated with the same pollution with the plausible mission of accelerating ice melt on the lake as a climate engineering objective.

Perhaps not coincidently, Flint Michigan is ground zero for an ongoing water contamination scandal where terrorists could not have done a better job at poisoning the water supply. (Detroit Free Press)

A dark, oily substance appeared on cars and homes in Harrison Township, Michigan on Feb. 15, 2016. The fire department stated that the substance was not a fire hazard.

The fire department came by on Tuesday and inspected the scene. “It was an ash type of substance with a little bit on an oily consistency to it,” Harrison Township Fire Department Chief Michael Lopez told ABC News.

“It appears to have fallen straight down,” he added, noting that the substance was only found on the roofs of cars and homes, and not splattered across the sides.

This was the first instance of this substance appearing that Lopez could recall.

The fire department did not do any chemical analyses but was able to determine that the substance was not a fire hazard and turned over the situation to the airbase.

Schlutow said he believes the substance might have come from the airbase, as it is only a few miles away. However, in a press release today, the Selfridge Air National Guard Base stated that “there is no indication that the substance in question came from a military aircraft of any type.”

The statement also noted that the airbase has “been in communication with the Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, which was sending a representative to the area in question to review the material.”

“As Michigan’s Hometown Air Force, we take being a good neighbor very serious,” said Brig. Gen. John D. Slocum, commander of the 127th Wing and the Selfridge base commander. “We will continue to work with our local and state partner agencies to resolve this question.”

The Department of Environmental Quality did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment.

The public has been trained and conditioned to believe that federal agencies like the EPA exist to watch over them and warn them of any potential dangers. This notion could not be further from the truth. Though there are honest and caring people within these agencies (like the scientist who has drafted the statement below), the institutions as a whole exist to hide threats from the population, not to disclose them. The majority of the public continues to convince themselves that if there was really anything they should be concerned about, someone, somewhere, in some federal public protection agency would tell them. The statement below should be a sobering wake-up call for us all. It is yet another confirmation of all that has been stated above. From global geoengineering, to Fukushima, to toxic fluoridated water and lethal vaccinations, the public health and the health of our biosphere is being decimated. Where are the official warnings from official agencies? The truth continues to be hidden by the government agencies that are tasked with hiding it.

Michael Davis is now a former EPA scientist who is working with GeoengineeringWatch.org in an effort to get the truth out, his full resume is at the bottom of this article. Michael was recently terminated from the EPA for daring to tell the truth about two extremely dire public dangers, the highly toxic fallout from climate engineering, and the willful contamination of the public water supply with industrial waste. I had the pleasure and honor of working with Michael for over a year, he has participated in conference calls directly with the Geoengineering Watch legal team (Legal Alliance to Stop Geoengineering, LASG). Upon being terminated from the EPA, I asked Mr. Davis if he would draft a statement for GeoengineeringWatch.org, that statement is below.

A Statement For GeoengineeringWatch.org From Scientist Michael Davis

My name is Michael Davis, I was employed as an Environmental Engineer for nearly 16 years in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Programs Branch of the Water Division in Region 5, Chicago of the USEPA. I was terminated as a public servant performing a public service for raising the issues of anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering.

Geoengineered skies, Woodland, Michigan. Photo credit: Kacy Blair

In addition, I brought up the industrial hazardous waste byproduct of fluoride known as HFSA (being sold primarily by the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industries) to drinking water utilities for disposal into the nation’s drinking water systems. This does not include pollutants that are discharged from wastewater reclamation facilities into receiving waters.

The issue regarding anthropogenic deposition of aluminum due to atmospheric geoengineering came up in May 2013 when a colleague in the NPDES Programs Branch sent a general email to everyone regarding “NPDES and Climate Change”. I sent a six (6) bullet point one – sentence response to my colleague. Nearly six (6) weeks later my supervisor (at the time) set up a conference call to inform me that I would be receiving a Letter of Reprimand for making false, malicious and unfounded statements against colleagues, supervisors, management and elected public servants. Furthermore, my then supervisor claimed that my statements damaged the integrity and reputation of the agency.

In April, 2014, my last supervisor assigned me to the Beloit, Wisconsin wastewater reclamation facility DRAFT permit review. I asked the permit writer why fluoride (a poison) was be disposed of in Beloit’s drinking water supply? She could not provide an explanation. Approximately two (2) weeks later my supervisor placed a “gag order” on me barring me from having any communication written or verbal with anyone unless he approved ahead of time and was present on all conference calls. It was claimed by my supervisor (and management) that the “gag order” would remain in place to prevent me from making statements that would further damage the integrity and reputation of the agency.

Furthermore, my supervisor kept giving me assignments like Beloit, Wisconsin where fluoride, along with other pollutants knowing that I would describe the adverse human, animal health effects along with adverse environmental effects of them in my DRAFT Permit review reports. The adverse human, animal and environmental effects were completely ignored by my supervisor. This was even more profound when it came to the issue of fluoride as HFSA being deposited into the drinking water system. This is in violation of (1) EPA’s Policy on Scientific Integrity, (2) The Precautionary Principle, (3) 5 U.S.C. §2302(b)(8) and (4) Informed Consent. My supervisor informed me that the EPA does not regulate fluoride in the drinking water systems under either the Clean Water Act (CWA) or the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). However, FDA under Health and Human Services (HHS) regulated fluoride in the drinking water systems.

I eventually crafted a general description of the adverse human and animal health effects in an email to my supervisor and upper level management. Initially was ignored by all of them. I had to send the original descriptive email several times over about a six (6) month period of time before I received a reply from the water division director who just parroted the corporate agenda pertaining to fluoride disposal into the nation’s drinking water systems.

The label in the photo above should be shocking to any that are even slightly awake. Highly toxic industrial waste that is officially labelled as a “drinking water additive”.

In doing my own research into the issue of anthropogenic deposition of aluminum from atmospheric geoengineering (as well as fluoride and other pollutants) in an attempt to determine why there was strong opposition from my supervisor and the EPA in general it this (factual reports on the issues). It is because the EPA wants to continue their cover-up, collusion, and criminality pertaining to pollution and contamination being perpetrated by their puppet masters, the multinational corporations. The EPA (like the FDA, CDC, etc) is a complete sham. Because the “P” in EPA stands for protection of corporate profits and not for protecting human, animal and environmental (or biosphere) health. The EPA like other governmental regulatory agencies are corrupt to the core, completely dysfunctional and have been completely hijacked by the multinational corporations.

I will not allow any of my ex – supervisors, ex – branch chiefs, ex – divisions directors, ex – EPA acting regional administrator or ex – EPA administrator or other individuals either identified or unidentified to get away contaminating our one and only biosphere (soil, water and air), and causing untold adverse human and animal health effects.

The threats we collectively face are immense and grave. These existential threats are being hidden from public view by government agencies which are completely controlled by a criminal power structure that operates in the shadows with impunity. Those who serve public protection agencies must find the courage to stand up and speak out as Michael Davis has. Others (in the same agencies), who have committed themselves to being shameless tyrannical order followers, must be exposed and held accountable, legally and morally. The battle before us to fully expose the truth requires our full commitment. Each of us is needed, all can make a difference. All can and must make their voices heard in the fight for the greater good, we are rapidly running out of time. My deepest respect and regard for the courage and concern for the greater good that Michael Davis has shown.DW

Michael Davis resume is below:

OBJECTIVE

To obtain a engineering position in the water/wastewater/alternative energy sector.

SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS

Solid training and education in chemical/mechanical engineering both supported by Bachelors and Masters degrees with concentration in thermal sciences relating to kinetics, fluid mechanics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics, as well as combustion, pollution and energy control types of engineering analysis.

Performed an empirical heat conduction analysis on the inner and outer bands of the first stage vane doublets with and without Thermal Barrier Coatings (TBC).

Performed further empirical analysis on different film cooling hole patterns on the inner and outer bands, as well as, the design and manufacturing aspects on introducing these film cooling holes.

Continued an extended analysis on hot streak on the second stage vanes and how to suppress this hot streak by introduction of film cooling holes on the transition duct.

Having my analysis interpreted in performance of both turbine and engine found that it was in good agreement with only a slight increase in combustor temperature was needed in order to maintain the performance power of the 501 industrial engine.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH, Long Beach, California
Master in Chemical Engineering (1995)
Directed Research Project: “Study of the Use of Intermediate Reboilers and Condensers for Industrial Distillation Systems.”

May be freely reprinted, so long as the text is unaltered, all hyperlinks are left intact, and credit for the article is prominently given to GeoengineeringWatch.org and the article’s author with a hyperlink back to the original story.​

These correlate well with changes in temperature over much shorter duration than glacial cycles.

Correlate well, that is, until around 1975.

“…but climate change as we know it today is characterized by an abrupt increase in the earth’s temperature. It is estimated to have gotten one point two to one point four degrees Fahrenheit warmer in just the last century. Ten out of the last thirteen years were the warmest on record. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that this new tendency is not caused by the variations of the earth’s orbit but rather very likely caused by human activities. That means you and me.”

Me and him, and I suppose, you. If everyoneis guilty, no one is guilty as the Italians say.

“Modern human activities have increased the release of non-naturally occurring greenhouse gases because we have stepped up our demand for burning fossil fuels. The composition of greenhouse gases traps heat radiated from the Sun. The more heat they trap, the warmer our planet gets and as our planet gets warmer we begin to feel the effects.”

Carbon dioxide as one of the three primary radiation absorbing constituents in the atmosphere (along with water vapour and ozone) has been increasing in concentration since the beginning of the last century. As every schoolchild knows, its effect is to decrease radiative loss to space via the greenhouse effect, and to warm the earth.

There does seem to be a definite upturn in CO2 levels from around 1960 that correlates with the spike in temperatures.

In this video depicting CO2 levels in the atmosphere over 1 year, 2006 we can readily observe that this gas is primarily emitted in the northern hemisphere, as one might expect.

NASA - A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

This would seem to sit well with the heat signature revealed in this NASA GISS map below showing the trend in temperatures annually (Jan-Dec) from the period 1979 - 2006.

It is clear that the warming is predominantly a northern hemisphere and particularly Arctic phenomenon.

However, the video only showed us CO2 over 1 year, 2006. Let us now look at how measurements of this gas vary over different latitudes covering the period from 1979 to 2006 as in this video below:

CO2 as a gas, although emitted mostly in the northern hemisphere, is dispersed evenly throughout the globe by the atmospheric circulation within the space of a year. This does not sit well with the heat signature of the planet covering a period of 27 years.

This even spread does not correlate with the uneven distribution of global temperature changes.

If CO2 were solely responsible for the warming we should see:

Warming of the Troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, and a cooling of the Stratosphere as heat is prevented from reaching this level.

Equal warming during the night as during the day.

More warming in winter.

More warming at the poles than at the equator.

All the points except for the last one are what we have actually observed.

It can hardly be said that both poles are warming more than the equator.

By the methods of observation and exclusion we have established that this thermodynamic footprint points towards something other than CO2 alone.

We know that Arctic surface air temperatures have increased by around 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) since 1976 whilst the Antarctic has increased by 0.35 °C (0.6 °F). That’s a 4-times greater increase in the North pole than the South pole.

What else could account for this uneven pattern?

A potential candidate is Soot.

Scientists have been finding soot, or black carbon as it is technically known, in the Arctic.

Black Carbon

It has been suggested that as much as 45% or more of the warming in the Arctic since1976 has been due to this black carbon. These particles absorb solar radiation and have a strong warming influence both in the atmosphere and on the surface where they counteract the albedo effect of the ice.

The Dog in the Night-Time

Eyebrows would be raised if it were to be disclosed just how much, during the 70’s, and further back, prominent scientists, government agencies and the banking and industrial oligarchs that owned them, were interested in raising global temperatures by means of such schemes as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers and altering cloud formation in order to ward off a supposed ice age, and of course, profit immeasurably.

In 1975, Newsweek published an article, in which the following was written:

“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”Emphasis mine

1975, the year before 1976, the date from which, 45%or more of the warming in the Arctic has been estimated to have occurred due to deposition of Black Carbon on the Arctic ice.

Further back, in 1972, a paper was written by Dr William Gray on the use of carbon dust (soot) for the purposes of climate modification.

This would involve ground based generators dispensing black carbon into the boundary layer just above the ice. The particles would absorb both incoming solar radiation and that reflected by the snow and warm the air just above the ice by means of convection.

If a deliberate, yet viable and clandestine attempt to melt the warm the Arctic was being made in alignment with Gray’s proposals, then black carbon would have been emplaced by means of ground based generators dispensing the particles in the boundary layer above the ice. The particles would then fall onto the surface. The Arctic ocean, when frozen and during its annual thaw, would also receive this treatment.

Gray studied the carbon dust smoke plumes generated by black carbon plants and petroleum fires and found them to be typical of the type of carbon plume which would be used for weather modification.

Perhaps Gray’s ground based dispensers are in place in the form of flare stacks contributing their carbon dust plumes in the Arctic to a degree around 20 times greater than anywhere else in the world in a region that is 5 times more sensitive.

“So it’s not just a warming climate that’s beating back the ice floes; it’s the soot generated from myriad industrial operations in the region. Of course, as the ice melts, more and more of those industries will set up shop in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, etc, and spew more and more soot onto the embattled ice.”

It is important to emphasize the fact that whilst Black Carbon levels have been increasing south of 71° N, they have been decreasing north of that latitude. This suggests that soot emitted within the Arctic Circle is the prime culprit. Gas flaring, for some reason, seems to contribute from around 42% to 52% of Black Carbon in this region, north of 66° N, more than it does in the rest of the world, where it contributes around 3%.

Having established that black carbon north of 70°N in the Arctic has declined since 1990, we can apply the method of exclusion and rule out long-range transport of black carbon from the former Soviet Union, Europe, North America and east Asia as a factor in the unprecedented warming.

We can also infer that the burden of black carbon south of 70°N is the result of emissions from within the Arctic circle itself.

Counterfeiting Clouds

Going back even further to 1970, we find a paper a written by Wallace Murcray.

He observed that contrails were becoming more frequent and might have an effect on the underlying heat economy. He even linked this observation to projects for modifying the climate discussed by scientists such as Fletcher in the 60s and speculated that they were already underway.

“The writer himself has seen instances in which a single contrail seemed to grow until it became an overcast covering the whole sky. If the contrail were indeed responsible, which is by no means certain, this would constitute definite proof that contrails are capable of a significant effect on local weather, and even possibly on global climate, if such occurrences are widespread and frequent.”

“The possible consequences of this are considerable, in fact, it seems probable that one of the projects for modifying the global climate discussed by Fletcher (1965), namely modification of the cloud cover over the polar basin by cloud seeding, is already underway, although the scale is still more modest than he envisioned.”

If all this sounds familiar, it’s because it is.

Modification of cloud cover by means of aircraft dispensing aerosols which cause artificial cirrus clouds to blanket the sky is a topic that more and more people are becoming aware of.

In this paper written in 1969 by J.O. Fletcher for the Rand Corporation, Fletcher discusses modification of cloud cover over the North Polar Basin by Cloud Seeding. The intent of such an operation is quite clearly for causing a warming to melt the Arctic ice.

“It has for example been noted that the creation or dissipation of high cloudiness has an enormous influence on the heat budget of the atmosphere and of the surface. It is estimated that it would take only sixty C-5 aircraftto deliver 1kg per km2 per day over the entire Arctic Basin (10 to the 7 km2). Thus, it is a large but not impossible task to seed such enormous areas.”

Clearly, the use of aircraft to seed clouds, the higher the more effective, as a means to warm the underlying atmosphere and surface was seriously considered at least as far back as 1969.

"Ice free Arctic Ocean

The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice-free ocean. As was noted earlier, this has been carefully studied by the staff of the Main Geophysical Observatory in Leningrad. The central question is the stability of the ensuing global climatic regime. This question cannot be adequately evaluated until global climate simulation models are better developed and suitable simulations performed.

There is also a certain amount of uncertainty in regard to the engineering feasibility of removing the Arctic pack ice. It is possible that the capacity of the present technology may be sufficient to accomplish this task, but this has not been established.

Three basic approaches have been proposed ( Fletcher, 1965): (1) influencing the surface reflectivity of the ice to cause more absorption of solar heat;(2) large-scale modification of Arctic cloud conditions by seeding;(3) increasing the inflow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean."

We have observed the increase in cloud cover over the Arctic and its consequent warming impact.

“Overall, relationships between ice, temperature, and clouds indicate that cloud changes in recent decades may enhance the warming of the Arctic and may be acting to accelerate the decline of Arctic sea ice.” Emphasis mine

Spatial distribution of trends in cloud cover over twenty years. Provided by Axel J. Schweiger.

Looking at the change in Arctic cloud cover in spring, we can see that there has been a roughly 10% increase from the period 1980 (73%) to 2005 (83%). This linear change has overridden the effects of the Arctic oscillation.

Time series of seasonally averaged cloud fraction over the arctic seas in spring (March, April, May). Provided by Axel J. Schweiger.

In the regions 60°N to 60°S there has been an increase in global cirrus cloud coverage and a decrease in global cumulus cloud coverage to correlate with the unprecedented global warming we have experienced since the mid-seventies.

The High Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) polar orbiting satellite data as reported by Wylie et al (1994) and Wylie and Menzel (1999) found that in the region 60°N to 60°S, over the period from 1985 to 2001, the high clouds, which have an overall warming effect, had increased globally by 1.95% on average, per decade whilst the lower, with an overall cooling influence, had decreased by 1.7% per decade.